"The President's Speech and the Media Headache" (Media Stupidity and Liberalism Alert)

ChronWatch ^ | March 7, 2003 | Roger Burdick

[conservativecorner]

I watched the President’s speech tonight and I thought he hit a home run. But then, I can comprehend the situation apparently unlike most of California, according to the latest Los Angeles Times poll. What confused me, though, was the question-and-answer period afterwards. The liberals might not agree there’s bias from their side, but anyone watching would agree that there is rampant stupidity.

There were questions about the peace protesters all over the world. Well, the world wasn’t attacked on 9-11-01, we were. There were questions about the U.N Security Council, too. The President’s answer was that they had a credibility problem. You think? One reporter compared the war we haven’t started yet to the Viet Nam war that ended in the early 70’s. There’s nothing like a comparison of past events to events that haven’t happened yet to really confuse the mind. All I can say is that I want that reporter to give me next week’s Lotto numbers!

Then there was the cost of the war that was questioned. Why do liberals worry about some costs but not others? To a liberal, tax cuts cost the taxpayers money, and wars cost the taxpayer money, but apparently foreign aid, our dues to the U.N., N.A.T.O. and other treaties don’t cost a dime. Not to mention the Social Security scam, the welfare scam, the environmental Superfund scam, and a host of others that cost money.

Think of it this way: If it fits the liberal agenda, then there is no cost, or the cost is worth it. If it fits the conservative agenda, then anything costs too much. This is a game of fiscal political correctness, or as I see it, fiscal censorship. In reality, the government has no money other than what they can force out of us. The money is ours, not theirs!

My favorite question though was the one that asked the President to show us the same evidence he has in regards to Iraq’s intent. Sure buddy, just let all of America see the government's Top Secret information! You know, some questions just shouldn’t be allowed.

There are some questions that I think that should have been asked, but weren’t. Questions like: ''Why is Ted Kennedy allowed to speak out against the war when he’s recklessly killed more people than most Americans have?'' Or, ''Why does the U.N. allow France to side with Saddam just because Chirac is a really close friend of Saddam?'' I would love to have heard, ''Is the U.N. really the pointless and worthless political body it appears to be?''

If these questions were asked, that would have made my day. And if I had been there, I would have asked them! Another question that would have been great is one regarding the fact that Saddam has used chemical and biological weapons against the Kurds, followed up with: ''I don’t understand how anyone in this room can’t see that he’ll use them on America. Can you explain that to me?''

Unfortunately for America, the liberals control the press and to be fair there were a couple of intelligent questions, but most were self-serving and degrading to the military and America’s heritage of helping the downtrodden. Then, coincidentally, there was a poll today in the Los Angeles Times. The poll showed that most Californians are against the war. The poll is not to be trusted as national polls show support for the President by almost 65%.

Real America isn’t California because of the hostages the liberals have taken here. They own the State, the Legislature and the press, and look at the shape we’re in. If liberals can’t ask the right questions in Washington D.C., how can we expect the right questions to be asked here?

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Thirty years ago, the number one employer in Minnesota was Northwest Airlines. Today, its public employees.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

You might like Postmodern War, Victor Davis Hanson's take on the press.

[Question_Assumptions]

The "cost" question was an attempt to dig for information that the peace nuts could use against the war. I'm glad that Bush didn't play into their hand.

[TXLady]

Excellent article. Thanks for posting it.

[thinktwice]

Having lived through World War II, President Bush hit a home run for me last night. The need to remove Saddam is blatantly obvious.

To those that did not live through WW-II; it is not obvious.

To WW-II Americans, the incalculable cost for war was a given; so Americans fought -- or worked -- at max levels, while buying "war-bonds."

[gridlock]

"Why does the U.N. allow France to side with Saddam just because Chirac is a really close friend of Saddam?''

Dosn't the fellow standing between them look uncomfortable? Maybe those two should get a room!

Saddam Hussein (second from left) tours
French nuclear reactor along with Chirac,
(right) prior to signing an agreement to have
the French build the ill-fated Osirak reactor
in Iraq.

[IYAS9YAS]

I agree, he did well not to. I saw on a post here somewhere a brilliant retort to that question when posed by the vapid...the retort was "How much is your city worth?". Can't take credit but will post it again...